Statutory timelines for rent deposits under Section 7(1) of WBPT Act are mandatory and non-extendable.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Court has the power to extend the mandatory time limits for depositing rent prescribed under Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997

The court held

The Court answered the issues in the negative, holding that the statutory timelines under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act are non-extendable

It also directed

The Revisional Application was dismissed, affirming the Trial Court's order to strike out the petitioners' defense

the petitioners remain entitled to cross-examine the plaintiffs' witnesses and advance arguments on the points of law, as per the Modula India principle

All connected applications (CAN 1 and CAN 3 of 2025) were disposed of accordingly

01Facts

The opposite parties (landlords) filed Ejectment Suit No. 06 of 2025 against the petitioners (tenants) for eviction based on negligence and default

pp. 1-2

Summons were served on January 31, 2025, and petitioners appeared on February 27, 2025, filing applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 ("1997 Act")

p. 2

The Trial Court allowed the Section 7(1) application on the same day, permitting deposit of current monthly rents

p. 2

The petitioners failed to deposit the rent within the statutory period, subsequently filing applications under Section 151 of the CPC on March 19 and 20, 2025, seeking permission to deposit arrears

p. 2

They claimed they were unaware of the February 27 order as it was not uploaded on the e-portal and because their counsel suffered a family bereavement

p. 3

The Trial Court rejected these applications and invoked Section 7(3) of the 1997 Act to strike out the defense

p. 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Court has the power to extend the mandatory time limits for depositing rent prescribed under Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997

p. 7 / para. 21

ii.2. Whether the petitioners’ plea of ignorance of the court order and advocates' personal difficulties constitute sufficient grounds to bypass the statutory mandate

pp. 6 / para. 18-19

03Law Applied

The court primarily applied Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, specifically Section 7(1) regarding the mandatory deposit of rent, Section 7(2) regarding determination of arrears, and Section 7(3) regarding the striking out of defense for non-compliance

p. 5, 10

Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School v. Ismat Ahmed & Others (2025), which established that the time limits in Section 7(1) are mandatory and cannot be extended under Section 5 of the Limitation Act

pp. 7-10

Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo regarding the residual rights of a tenant whose defense is struck out

p. 11

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151

West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 Section 7

Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5

04Reasoning

The Court found the petitioners' claim of being unaware of the February 27 order unconvincing. Evidence showed the order was endorsed on the application itself on the date of hearing

pp. 5-6 · ¶ 17

Furthermore, the petitioners’ counsel filed an adjournment petition on March 03, 2025, which did not mention the bereavement but requested time for a written statement, contradicting the claim that the advocate was unable to attend court

pp. 6-7 · ¶ 20

Applying the Seventh Day Adventist ruling, the Court held that the word "shall" in Section 7(1) imposes a strict obligation to pay or deposit rent within the specified time to enjoy protection from eviction

p. 8 · ¶ 28

The Court reasoned that statutory protections for tenants are conditional upon strict adherence to rent payment timelines, and even if there were an absence of correct legal advice or administrative delay in uploading orders, the legal consequences of non-compliance must flow

pp. 9-10

05Holding

The Court answered the issues in the negative, holding that the statutory timelines under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act are non-extendable

p. 7 · ¶ 22

The Revisional Application was dismissed, affirming the Trial Court's order to strike out the petitioners' defense

p. 11 · ¶ 24

the petitioners remain entitled to cross-examine the plaintiffs' witnesses and advance arguments on the points of law, as per the Modula India principle

p. 11 · ¶ 23

All connected applications (CAN 1 and CAN 3 of 2025) were disposed of accordingly

p. 11

LawLens.Calcutta High Court

Original Court PDF